Boston Lawyer Blog

Massachusetts SJC’s Decision in Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hospital Stops Erosion of Right to Jury Trial in Employment Cases

Published on: April 1, 2016 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

Among lawyers who represent employees in discrimination lawsuits, the most maligned rule of civil procedure is Rule 56, which governs summary judgment—a time-consuming, expensive, and frequently unfairly applied procedure in which judges decide cases on paper instead of allowing juries to hear the parties’ evidence. In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court’s recent decision in Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hospital should help to discourage employers from filing motions for summary judgment, and help plaintiffs to get their cases before a jury.

Motions for summary judgment ask the court to enter judgment for a party prior to trial and without allowing a jury to hear the evidence. Either side can make such a motion, and in cases where the parties agree on the basic facts, summary judgment can be a useful tool for resolving cases that turn purely on a question of law without expending resources on a full trial. In the practice of employment law, though, the employment defense bar devoted to protecting companies from discrimination claims has successfully perverted summary judgment into a tool for taking the ultimate contested issue of fact—whether the employer chose to fire or otherwise take action against the plaintiff because of his or her race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or age—away from the jury. Instead, employment defense lawyers ask judges to answer that question based on a paper record, depriving the plaintiff of the chance to tell his or her story. Judges, unfortunately, have been all too eager to accept the invitation to substitute their own judgment of the evidence for that of a jury, and summary judgment has become an important hurdle for many employment plaintiffs—one that can be difficult and costly to surmount.

Like the Cosby Case, Massachusetts SJC Decision in Commonwealth v. Celester Illustrates When to Invoke the Fifth Amendment

Published on: March 7, 2016 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

In a new case, Commonwealth v. Celester, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court emphasizes how important it is for defendants to be informed of and advised regarding their right to remain silent, holding that it was ineffective for an attorney not to advise his client to invoke his Fifth Amendment right when questioned by police. The decision is legally significant in the scope that it gives to the right to effective advice of counsel, but it also illustrates what good criminal defense lawyers already know about the importance of the Fifth Amendment—a lesson that Bill Cosby would have benefited from when giving a deposition in 2005.

In most criminal cases, most defense lawyers advise their clients not to give statements to the police. This is common, often essential, advice that we give to the innocent as well as to the guilty; someone who will have to defend him or herself at trial is almost always better off not unnecessarily sharing information with prosecutors in advance. In criminal trials, the choices to invoke the Fifth Amendment and not answer questions from the police, or to remain silent at trial, cannot be held against a defendant, and so there is often little downside in taking the Fifth, particularly in interrogation by police.

Cosby Prosecution for Sexual Assault Shows Shift in Attitudes

Published on: December 31, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

Nearly 12 years after Bill Cosby allegedly drugged and sexually assaulted Andrea Constand, his arrest in Pennsylvania on a charge of aggravated indecent assault subjects him to the possibility of criminal penalties for the first time. One reason that the prosecution is happening now is simple—this is prosecutors’ last opportunity to charge Cosby before the statute of limitations expires. But in 2005, when memories and evidence were relatively fresh, prosecutors chose not to pursue charges. The change was undoubtedly prompted in part by the enormous number of women who have now accused Cosby of similar conduct, but may also indicate a more general shift in attitudes about rape and sexual assault. While it is too early to say whether it will break any new legal ground, the case is now taking place in a historical moment when questions about intoxication and consent to intoxication are hotly contested.

In 2005, then-Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor declined to prosecute Cosby, citing “insufficient credible and admissible evidence.” With the exception of statements in depositions conducted in Constand’s civil lawsuit against Cosby, though, the bulk of the information contained in the Affidavit of Probable Cause supporting issuance of a warrant for Cosby’s arrest was known to authorities in 2005. Constand’s account is essentially that Cosby offered her pills to help her relax; that after she took the pills and drank some wine which Cosby pressed upon her she began experiencing blurred vision and difficulty speaking; and that Cosby then told her to lie down, assisted her to the couch, positioned himself behind her, and then touched her sexually, including penetrating her with his fingers. According to the affidavit, Cosby was questioned in 2005 about these allegations and agreed that he had given Constand pills when she complained of tension and inability to sleep (he claimed that they were Benedryl, which he agreed made him go to sleep right away when he took it); that he had not told her what the pills were; that he had engaged in sexual activity with her; and that when Constand’s mother confronted him about his actions he offered to pay for Constand to go to graduate school. Constand’s mother also spoke with police and stated that Cosby had told her that he gave Constand prescription pills and would mail her the name of the pills. Cosby nonetheless claimed that his activity with Constand was consensual, and prosecutors declined to charge him.

Chism Murder Trial Raises Unsettling Questions Regarding Competency to Stand Trial

Published on: December 1, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

The ongoing trial of Philip Chism, which resumed yesterday following the Thanksgiving holiday, presents an unusual and disturbing set of issues in view of the terrible nature of the defendant’s actions, his extreme youth, and his apparently very serious mental illness. First, the events at issue are undeniably horrifying; Chism admittedly raped and killed his teacher, who was by all accounts a wonderful person and whose death was a tremendous loss. (Beyond that, I won’t recount the details here, but they have been set forth at length in the press.) Second, Chism, who was 14 years old when he killed his teacher, is being tried as an adult, which he undeniably is not and was not at the time of the crime; as Northeastern University law professor Daniel Medwed has written, treating children as adults is problematic regardless of how horrifying their actions are. And finally, Chism, who is now 16 years old, has exhibited signs of significant mental illness during his trial, repeatedly raising a question about whether he is actually competent to stand trial.

Chism’s trial was delayed so that his competency could be evaluated after he said during jury selection that he wished to be shot in the courtroom and claiming that voices told him not to trust his attorneys. The trial judge concluded, following that evaluation, that he was competent, and the case has moved forward. Chism is not currently contesting his competency to stand trial, despite a breakdown on the second day of his trial in which he refused to return to the courtroom, telling his defense counsel while shaking, twitching, and mumbling that he was “about to explode” and didn’t want to hurt anyone. The case thus sheds light on the difficult questions that arise when the criminal justice system must handle serious mental illness or disability.

California Governor’s Veto of Bill Mandating Penalties for Campus Sexual Assault Allows Colleges to Exercise Discretion

Published on: October 15, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

A complex patchwork of federal laws, regulations, and both binding and non-binding “guidance” issued by federal agencies governs how colleges respond to allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault on campus. Compliance with these laws is often a challenge for colleges, which have to respond to the federal government’s increasingly specific demands regarding the contents of their policies and conduct of adjudications in this area. From my perspective as a lawyer whose most frequent involvement in such campus proceedings is as an advocate for accused students and faculty, it often seems that the laws that govern in this area are becoming increasingly complex and yet no better able to deal effectively or appropriately with the complexity of real human relationships and interactions. I firmly share the goal of reducing sexual assault on college campuses and elsewhere, but believe that legislation should be carefully evaluated with an eye to its likely real-life consequences for students, whether complainants or respondents.

That is why, as states begin to legislate more frequently in this area, California Governor Jerry Brown’s veto of one proposed law was a refreshingly common sense choice. The bill would have required colleges to dole out at least a two year suspension to any student found responsible for a sexual assault of any kind. That requirement quickly prompts the question of how “sexual assault” is defined, and there the legislation provided little help, stating: “For purposes of this section, ‘sexual assault’ includes, but is not limited to, rape, forced sodomy, forced oral copulation, rape by a foreign object, sexual battery, or a threat of sexual assault involving a student, whether on or off campus.” That definition is incredibly poorly drafted; it is common sense that sexual assault would include the listed crimes, but by stating that it is “not limited to” those crimes, legislators left open the possibility that the definition could be wide enough to sweep up extensive conduct that most people would not consider so severe as to warrant a two year suspension from college, with its attendant loss of financial aid and removal from school housing.

Judge’s Discovery Order in EEOC Transgender Litigation: Right Result, But Reason for Caution

Published on: September 28, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

I have written previously about the EEOC’s litigation on behalf of Aimee Stephens, whose employer—a Michigan funeral home—fired her when she announced that she was transitioning and would present as a woman at work in the future. At ZDB we have continued to follow this potentially groundbreaking federal litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan. In the most recent development, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand granted the EEOC’s motion for a protective order, seeking to prevent the defendant funeral home from violating Ms. Stephens’ privacy during the process of discovery in the case. While, given the nature of the discovery sought, this was patently the right outcome, the judge’s order could (and, in my view, should) have provided more assurance to future transgender litigants that they will be protected from attempts to use discovery as a tool to invade their privacy and humiliate them.

The discovery requests at issue sought detailed disclosures on numerous personal matters totally irrelevant to the ultimate issue in the case (which, following the court’s decision on the funeral home’s motion to dismiss, is whether the funeral home fired Ms. Stephens because she did not conform to its sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes). Among those matters was Ms. Stephens’ medical history: the funeral home sought her medical and counseling records as well as asking whether she “currently has male sexual organs, including but not limited to, a penis and testicles”; whether she has had “any surgery performed to remove or modify any male sexual organs”; and whether she has undergone hormone therapy. The funeral home also sought to pry into Ms. Stephens’ family life, asking for detailed information on any past marriages (including all pleadings from any prior divorce), her biological offspring, her communications with her family regarding her transition, her wife’s feelings about the transition, and the current state of her marriage.

Labrie Case Prompts Examination of Statutory Rape Law

Published on: August 28, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

The big news in criminal law this week has been the ongoing New Hampshire trial of Owen Labrie, a prep-school student accused of raping a 15-year-old fellow student. As I write this, the jury in that case is considering its verdict. While the case has gained attention in large part due to the prestige of the school and the unsavory details that have emerged regarding an apparently longstanding “senior salute” tradition in which male seniors compete to receive the most sexual favors, one legally interesting detail is that Labrie is facing a litany of charges based in part due to the age of the female student. As to those offenses, her consent to their activities (a hotly disputed issue at trial) is irrelevant.

Statutory rape laws, which make it a crime to have sex with a person under a certain age regardless of that person’s consent, differ significantly from state to state. Ideally, such laws address the real need to deter and punish predatory sexual behavior aimed at children without treating children who choose to engage in sexual behavior with one another as criminals. In Massachusetts, 16 is the age of consent set by statute and it is a crime for anyone—including another child under the age of 16—to have sexual intercourse with a child under that age. (A separate statute concerns sexual activity that doesn’t include intercourse.) The child’s consent and a lack of knowledge of the child’s age are not defenses. That crime is aggravated where the difference in age between the accused and the victim is more than 5 years and the victim is under 12, or there a more than 10-year age gap and the victim is 12-16, or if the accused is a mandatory reporter. The opposite is not true, however—a lesser difference in age (or no difference in age) is not a defense.

Seventh Circuit’s Blagojevich Decision Upholds Conviction, But Condemns Prosecutorial Overreach

Published on: July 23, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

As anyone who wasn’t living under a rock in December 2008 is aware, Rod Blagojevich, then-Governor of Illinois, was arrested in that month and charged with committing numerous federal crimes. He was ultimately convicted of 18 of those charges—1 by the jury at his first trial, which was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges, and 17 at his second. The case has garnered significant legal debate with many legal commentators, including ZDB’s of counsel attorney Harvey Silverglate, questioning whether he had been singled out for prosecution for political business-as-usual. On July 21, 2015 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case, upholding the bulk of the convictions, but vacating the guilty verdicts on certain counts because the jury instructions could have allowed the jury to convict without any evidence that Blagojevich did more than engage in ordinarily political deal-making.

The charges that received the most attention in the press are also those which consumed the bulk of the Seventh Circuit’s analysis. After Barack Obama won the presidential election in 2008, Blagojevich, as the Governor of Illinois, was entitled to appoint someone to his vacated Senate seat. As the Seventh Circuit put it, Blagojevich “viewed the opportunity to appoint a new Senator as a bonanza,” and sought favors in return for the appointment from two different groups. First, he approached Obama, suggesting that he would appoint Valerie Jarrett in exchange for an appointment to the Cabinet, for Obama’s assistance in getting a lucrative job at a foundation after his term as Governor, or for a $10 million donation to a new organization he would control. Second, he approached supporters of Jesse Jackson, Jr., and offered to appoint Jackson in exchange for a $1.5 million campaign contribution. The Seventh Circuit had no trouble concluding that this second set of negotiations violated federal law, nor in condemning various other actions that Blagojevich took, unrelated to the Senate seat, as illegal. However, it viewed the evidence regarding Blagojevich’s negotiations regarding Jarrett’s possible nomination differently, concluding that while exchanging the seat for “a private-sector job, or for funds that he could control” would be illegal, a request for a position it the Cabinet in exchange for the appointment would not violate any of the various federal statutes that prosecutors invoked.

Massachusetts Appeals Court affirms free speech restrictions on harassment prevention orders

Published on: June 22, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

In 2010 the Massachusetts legislature made a significant change in the law when it created harassment prevention orders, restraining orders that plaintiffs can seek to protect themselves against harassing behavior regardless of their relationship to the harasser. (Before 2010, people seeking restraining orders in Massachusetts could receive protection only under an abuse prevention order, available only against abusers who are “family or household members” of the plaintiff seeking the order, a definition which includes anyone with whom the plaintiff has been in a serious dating relationship or with whom she has a child.) Because the harassment prevention law is relatively new, the state courts are still refining when these orders are and are not available. In the cases interpreting the law, it has become clear that the courts are struggling to strike a balance between protecting victims of real harassment from harm and unduly restricting free speech.

In a new decision issued this month in the case of Petriello v. Indresano, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has given courts considering whether to issue harassment prevention orders some important guidance, which should guide those seeking (or defending against) such orders going forward. The plaintiff in the case was an elderly woman’s representative acting under a power of attorney, seeking a restraining order against members of her deceased husband’s family. The plaintiff’s representative testified at the hearing, describing “constant . . . belittling, abuse.” The elderly woman had to go to the hospital due to apparent distress related to this conduct, and an outside investigation substantiated allegations of elder abuse against her. The district court issued a harassment protection order.

EEOC’s Litigation on Behalf of Transgender Employees Reveals Reach (and Limits) of Federal Anti-Discrimination Law

Published on: May 11, 2015 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

In September 2014, the EEOC filed its first employment discrimination lawsuits on behalf of transgender employees. (Rachel Stroup previously wrote about those suits, and related moves by the federal government to recognize antidiscrimination protection for transgender individuals, here.) The first of those suits, against an eye clinic, has settled; the clinic agreed to pay the employee $150,000 as well as to take specified proactive actions to avoid discrimination in the future. The second, EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., is a suit pending in the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a transgender employee, Amiee Stephens, whose employer, a funeral home, allegedly fired her when she informed it that she was undergoing a gender transition from male to female and intended to dress in appropriate business attire as a woman. That case has just survived the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court’s reasoning should encourage employees who believe that they are experiencing discrimination due to transgender status to stand up for their rights, but it also reveals continuing gaps in federal discrimination law that Congress should act to remedy.